Lessons from the Arts: A Review of "The Arts and the Creation of Mind" by Elliot Eisner
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Elliot Eisner's most recent book, The Arts and the Creation of Mind, presents evidence for the importance of arts education and the need for it to move from the periphery to the centre of curriculum.He maintains that the arts have specific and unique contributions to make to cognitive development.Eisner's case is compelling.Although the ideas presented here are not new, but more of a summary of his work to date, The Arts and the Creation of Mind is a book worth reading.Eisner does a commendable job of presenting his ideas in a concise, engaging text that serves as an excellent introduction to his work.As such, teachers, parents, administrators and anyone interested in the future of education could pick up this book and be riveted by its contents.The importance of arts education is brought alive in these pages.For a book that is academic in nature, this is a page-turner.Eisner first began to advocate the value of including the arts in the curriculum in the 1960's.A constant theme throughout his work since then has been that the arts promote subtle and complex forms of cognitive development that are not easily achieved in other disciplines
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".